RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Move over aliens, plagues, Sharknados—it's committed gays who'll soon kill Western Civilization » Nine former water-carriers for 'ex-gayness' join all credible scientists in denouncing 'ex-gay' propaganda » The operative word is 'yet' » Video: Tony Perkins for politically-driven pastors to test (if not run afoul) tax exempt status » Ruth Institute (former NOM affiliate): Same-sex marriage is as much of a wedge as interracial marriage bans » NOM finally admitting that marriage amendments are, in fact, bans » Kentucky's big anti-LGBT org hopes to pray away a fair court ruling on civil marriage » Iowa's governor sponsoring anti-gay Family Leader summit? » Head of Virginia's top anti-gay org: One mean email proves 'the left' is sexist, intolerant » Video: Ohio should be so lucky to have married couples as adorable as George Henry  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

06/16/2010

Yea, yea -- Tony backs gay ban itself. Better discussion: He inherently opposes *gay man* itself!

by Jeremy Hooper

6A00D8341C503453Ef0134824Ff535970COn Sunday, 2/28/10, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins took to the pulpit at Nashville, TN's Grace Chapel Church, where he proceeded to tell congregants that gay people are "being held captive by the enemy":

(click to play audio clip)
*FULL VIDEO: The Quest For Change -- Tony Perkins [Grace Chapel]

Perhaps not a shocking thing to hear if you are someone who's familiar with Tony Perkins. But it is something that bears repeating, since it fully reveals the motivations behind this man's political work. Because let's get real here: The simple truth is that Tony Perkins will NEVER hold anything close to a fair and objective opinion about measures involving LGBT nondiscrimination, because he *fully admits* his personal belief in gays' possession by "the enemy." He will never be a mere conservative counterpoint on issues like Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal or employment nondiscrimination, because his pre-choreographed human rights opera always ends in tragedy for the LGBT protagonist (or antagonist, in Tony's libretto). In short: There is no real conversation to be had -- the anti-LGBT mind is made up.

So why do we bring this up now? Well, because Politico is currently running a piece that Tony penned with retired Marine Corps general John Sheehan, in which the duo accuse the Democrats of carrying out shady Don't Ask Don't Tell dealings, gay activists of undermining national security, gay soldiers of posing an HIV threat, the study group working on the Pentagon report as being innately biased toward a pro-equality outcome, and the whole issue of DADT repeal of being some sinister can of worms that must be rejected lest the progressives and homosexuals get too uppity. A snip:

Men and women should be allowed to serve in the military only if their character and conduct can help the U.S. armed forces achieve its mission. In multiple studies over the past 16 years, the addition of open homosexuality into the close quarters and tightly knit units of our military was predicted to add tension, not build unit cohesion.

“Unit cohesion” is essential to the success of the U.S. military. Respect for and loyalty and commitment to one another, to the point of a willingness to die for your buddy, is the single greatest imperative in any military force.

Yet homosexuality carries with it profound behavioral implications. Sexual attraction among members of the same sex — living, exercising, fighting and training alongside one another in the closest of quarters — could devastate morale, foster heightened interpersonal tension and lead to division among those who, more than virtually any other group in society, need to act as one.

Male and female military troops barrack separately for an obvious reason — sexual behavior would be inevitable and destructive to unit cohesion and effectiveness.

Would the president compel the armed forces to build single-unit barracks for gay men and women? The logistics of allowing open homosexuality in the military could be unmanageable.

In addition, the medical implications of Obama’s proposal are compelling. According to data released last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gay and bisexual men are 50 times more likely to have HIV than heterosexual men.

This would be devastating for military resources already stretched thin, and it has pronounced implications for battlefield blood transfusions.

This proposal is not about bigotry. Race is a superficial and benign element of one’s humanness, while homosexuality is a matter of behavior.

Homosexuality is not about civil rights but conduct detrimental to the discipline, trust and combat readiness of what has been — and still is — the world’s finest military.

If we want to keep it that way, we should not permit openly practicing homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military.

Read more: A charade with consequences [Politico]

These are the same talking points that have been challenged and refuted ad nauseam, so no need to go in depth yet again (all sexual behavior is subject to military rules and limits, homosexuality is no more confined to behavior than heterosexuality is, all soldiers are HIV tested, etc., etc.). But we do want to address the one thing that most everyone in the mainstream media and in political office neglect to mention, which is the fact -- THE. FACT! -- that people like Tony Perkins have no need or desire for openly, happily gay people anywhere in society. Period. By Tony's own admission! In his eyes, gays are "held captive" and need to be freed. In his mind, he is a modern-day Ghostbuster whose queer-converting Proton Pack is focused on the Gay-Pooft-Don't-Harsh-My-Mellow, Man.

This preconceived unwillingness to accept open gays in any form should not be a minor matter that we have to bring up in response -- it should be the lead point:

"MAN WHO THINKS GAYS ARE HELD CAPTIVE BY THE ENEMY AND THEREFORE SHOULD 'CHANGE' VIA 'EX-GAY' THERAPY ALSO OPPOSES GAYS' RIGHT TO SERVE OPENLY IN THE ARMED FORCES.'

It may be verbose, but it's far more accurate then the pass-granting headlines and introductions that this man usually gets. And it's exactly the kind of treatment that any other kind of personality who wanted to stop, ban, or change any other group of human beings would receive! Why the hell should we be any different? Is our supposed "enemy possession" really that less offensive?

***

**UPDATE, 6/17: SLDN's Aubrey Sarvis pens a response: Letter to the editor: 'Charade' piece ignores facts [Politico]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails